The Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice proposed a very problematic law that could mislead parents into not vaccinating because of false claims and would go against public policy. This post explains the problems with the law.

This post responds to the anti-vaccine claim that by reversing the finding that Prof. John Walker-Smith, the senior author on Andrew Wakefield’s Lancet paper, was guilty of serious ethical violations, a British Court also cleared Andrew Wakefield from the findings of a General Medical Council panel against him. No, that is incorrect.

Andrew Wakefield filed a libel suit against Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee, and the British Medical Journal with the Texas Court, seen by many as an attempt to punish critics and galvanize supporter. These posts cover the story of that appeal.

This post is the second post to examine a recent New Jersey case addressing the situation of a nurse, June Valent, who was dismissed after refusing to be vaccinated against influenza. Her hospital offered a religious and medical exemption, but she refused to make use of them, emphasizing her reasons were secular. The hospital dismissed her and refused to pay unemployment benefits for seven weeks. The court found in her favor.

This post focuses on the question whether a healthcare worker opposing influenza vaccine mandates can demand a medical exemption under the Americans with Disabilities Act or a religious exemption under Title VII to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming discrimination.

This post examines a recent New Jersey case addressing the situation of a nurse, June Valent, who was dismissed after refusing to be vaccinated against influenza. Her hospital offered a religious and medical exemption, but she refused to make use of them, emphasizing her reasons were secular. The hospital dismissed her and refused to pay unemployment benefits for seven weeks. The court found in her favor.

The post explains the problems with the court’s decision, and the problems with the hospital’s policy from a constitutional point of view.

At the request of Congressman Darrell Issa, the General Accountability Office examined the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and made a report. This post summarizes the report and explains its findings, putting them in context.

In a series of articles in several news papers, authors reported on an associated press report and criticized the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for delays, claiming it mistreated petitioners. They used a case of an alleged vaccine injury to demonstrate the program’s faults.

This post explains the problems with the articles and with the use of the case in question:

On the background of attempts by anti-vaccine activists to do away with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, our no-fault program for compensating vaccine injuries, I explain why the program is better for petitioners than the regular courts.

I did not write about the appeal results in the 2nd Circuit court of appeals because there’s no new ground there. But here is a good analysis by Andy Baker from the Network for Public Health Law: https://www.networkforphl.org/the_network_blog/2015/01/21/539/public_health_in_court_school_exclusion_of_unvaccinated_children